Wes Tender

Several. Some from the rogue Speaker, Bercow, some from traitorous MPs going to meet EU officials in Brussels to brief them on how to thwart the Brexit vote, other remoaner MPs passing legislation like the Benn Surrender Treaty obliging us to accept any deal the EU wanted to force on us, May and Robbins plotting a deal with the EU without discussing the terms with her own Cabinet, particularly her own Brexit Minister, MPs taking over Parliamentary business to vote on contentious amendments to Brexit legislation ,etc.

Read the argument put forward in the link and answer ta simple question that is the basis for it. The circumstances surrounding the original drawing up of the WA have completely changed post the GE and the mandate given to the government now.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/11/the-revenge-of-the-remainers/ The last few twitches of the death throes of the remoaner establishment elite. Only around a month before the deadline for them to accept our red lines over our fishery waters and the so-called level playing field, and if they can't bring themselves to do it, then we tell them we're going WTO.

I feel really worried for you. Here we are, going to lose all of our trade with the EU because the electorate comprises a majority of thick, racist bigots who not only voted to leave your beloved EU, but also voted to elect a corrupt extreme right wing government with a stonking majority. It must really irk you immensely whenever you go out, that you are literally surrounded by these thick racist bigots. They say that wherever you are, you are no more than 6 feet away from a rat, so it must engender that sort of horror for you, eh? It comes through increasingly with every additional post you make. I worry that very soon, you are going to explode with pent up rage. Go and lie down in a quiet dark room until you are calmer. Think about taking up meditation or do something else to distract you from these thoughts.

The EU doesn't need to trade with the 5th biggest economy and their major customer with whom they have a massive trade surplus? You crack me up! 🤣

What's an unbiased source? One that supports the EU?

https://facts4eu.org/news/2020_sep_eu_broke_gfa https://facts4eu.org/news/2020_sep_eu_weaponising_peace One in the eye for mad Nancy Pelosi and the background on how and why the EU and Ireland weaponised Northern Ireland in the post Brexit negotiations.

Yes, I spotted that too. I read it that the Supreme Court will be hampered by the precedent they adjudicated on in the Miller case and will be required to rule that the UK Parliament is sovereign and that Section 38 of the WA permits the government to proceed with the Internal Market Bill

He's arguing against things that lots of remoaners have said. I imagine that he didn't write the article for no apparent reason. So when we sign a FTA with the EU, that will count as 27 more deals for us, will it? 🤣

It did. Section 38 of the Withdrawal Act covers it I believe. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/09/kenneth-armstrong-can-the-uk-breach-the-withdrawal-agreement-and-get-away-with-it-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill/ Plus as far as I am aware, the EU could be accused of breaking the terms of an international treaty too, because they could be accused of not using their best endeavours, and not acting in good faith to arrange a FTA with us in accordance with the terms of Article 50, the WA and the Political Declaration. More to come on this later today.

I read a good article reducing that number of so-called EU trade deals substantially by taking out those where deals weren't fully signed, weren't full deals etc. Also several were minuscule deals with non-entity countries, but looked good to prop up the numbers. I can't find it without further digging. However, you might like to read this counter argument which calls your argument of bigger is better and stronger as a fallacy. https://www.brexit-watch.org/the-three-basic-fallacies-that-cause-confusion-about-trade/the-three-basic-fallacies-that-cause-confusion-about-trade

Then I suggest that we wait a couple of years and then peruse what we have achieved in terms of trade deals around the World before decrying our chances as an independent sovereign nation. There are swings and roundabouts in negotiating as a single nation. Naturally we have less to offer in terms of size than a trading block like the EU, but then again, we are the 5th biggest economy in the World and as the second largest economy in the EU, bigger than the smallest 19 EU countries' economies combined. Naturally it is easier to negotiate the terms of a trade deal with one country rather than with 27, as the length of time the EU takes to negotiate its deals proves.

I've been more accurate in my predictions than you have since 2016. Norway anybody? 😁

Many of the remoaner fraternity crowed that we wouldn't be able to gain one. It's a step in the direction of us possibly joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership one day, especially when we will also have trade agreements with Canada, Australia and New Zealand too. Remoaners are only too happy to make comparisons with the amount of trade we do with the EU, but it is still in the mutual interests of both parties to have a FTA, so these deals will be additional to that. If we don't agree a FTA with them, then as well as throwing the £39 Billion so-called divorce settlement into question, a WTO tariff regime will cost the EU billions of pounds of revenue into our coffers annually with the huge trade surplus trade in goods they have with us.

Great news today with the announcement of a trade deal with Japan. I must crack open a bottle of Sake to celebrate. Regarding these allegations that the UK would be breaking the terms of an international treaty with its Internal Market Bill, there is a very comprehensive article in Conservative Home today by Sir Bernard Jenkin disputing that the proposed alterations/clarifications to the WA will represent a breach of international law. All those parroting the knee-jerk reactions of the left wing media that we will be condemned as untrustworthy by the international community, will do well to read it in order to gain an insight to the reasoning behind the proposed changes. it is also quite delicious to read that the Government's right to make these changes has been endorsed by the Supreme Court following the intervention of Soros protege Gina Miller earlier in the Brexit process over the triggering of Article 50. In other news today, I am also highly amused by the vote of the Shetland Islands Council to pursue independence from Scotland. How can the Scots Nats make a case for their independence from us and then deny it to the Shetland Islanders?

Surely you're not basing whether we do a trade deal with the USA on mad Nancy Pelosi's utterings? It isn't the first time that she has chosen to shoot from the lip and believe that she has the right to speak on behalf of the USA. She said much the same sort of thing year ago. She isn't bright enough even to realise that the legislation proposed in the Internal Market Bill is designed to protect the Good Friday Agreement.

I was disappointed that Cameron resigned following the referendum result, but he had pretty well cooked his own goose because of the active role he had played in the campaign. Had he declared his preference, but then stated that he would sit on the sidelines during the debates and would then fully accept the result, he could have remained as PM and handled the negotiations himself. Whether he would have allowed the EU to then set the negotiation agenda in the crassly stupid way that the incompetent May did, or whether he would have allowed the imbalance favouring the remoaners in his Cabinet is a moot point. May was just a total disaster, the worst Prime Minister of modern times, but thankfully her incompetence resulted eventually in the stonking Boris majority and the cleansing of most of the remoaner ultras in the Party and the House It was a certainty that the referendum vote result would mean an entrenchment of both sides of the argument. The majority of voters and indeed members of the political parties are either for Brexit or against it. It is the biggest and most contentious issue in modern times, so no surprise there that people are either on one side or the other.

Your memory of events has faded somewhat. Gove stabbed Boris in the back, ruining both of their chances of leading the Party at that time. But as LD says, the Party and Brexit is much better for it, as events following on from the term of the incompetent May's Brexit negotiations meant that she and all the rest of the remoaner ultras were consigned to the dustbin of history and Boris received the massive electoral mandate to get Brexit done.

Badger has answered quite a bit of it, Plastic, but I'll fill in the gaps from my point of view. May mainly gets the blame because of "the buck stops here" principle. As the PM, she was responsible for the way that the whole thing developed when she took over from Cameron after the referendum vote. Had she not out of naivety and weakness allowed the EU and Barnier to set the agenda and insisted instead that the FTA talks were held in tandem with the so-called divorce settlement, (as per the Article 50 legislation) then a lot of the problems we have now wouldn't have occurred. But she shares the blame for all that with the useless Ollie Robbins, and the remoaners in her Cabinet and in the House. That is all water under the bridge, as she and most of them are now either an irrelevance or no longer in the House. One can't blame the EU for wanting to make the terms for our leaving seem like a punishment, but clearly they have not acted in good faith as a result. Otherwise, bringing things up to date, I am entirely happy with the way that things are going currently. As I have said before, whereas a Canada style FTA would be the best outcome, if the EU wish to cut off their noses to spite their faces by making that impossible because of their stupid intransigence over fisheries and the level playing field terms, then I am completely happy with WTO terms.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/1/section/38 Yes, I believe that he was responsible for this part of the legislation. As you say, very clever indeed Here is the new Bill that all the fuss is about, the Internal Market Bill, introduced today https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-21/unitedkingdominternalmarket.html No doubt we will be hearing all the opinions about what is contentious in it once the legal eagles have had a chance to inspect it.

I don't think for one minute that will be the case, but in any event it is a bit premature to make these sorts of assertions without knowing what these changes are in the Bill, which is only beginning its passage today. This "breaking existing treaties" apparently comprises changes to it in a “very specific and limited way”. This sounds more like tinkering with it, as far as I am aware, providing clarification of our legal position where the existing wording of the treaty is open to interpretation and might allow the jurisdiction of the ECJ to hold sway over us. In any event, if a FTA is agreed between us and the EU, many of these parts of the Treaty will not be applicable, so as I say, a bit premature to go jumping the gun at this stage. Do you believe that it is an acceptable position for a foreign body to dictate how we govern ourselves as an independent nation? Most future trading partners that we are contemplating arranging deals with will view our current situation with the EU sympathetically. I won't hold my breath waiting for the remoaner condemnation of the EU acting in bad faith towards us contrary to the terms of Article 50, the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration which stated that they would use their best endeavours to deliver a FTA between us and them. Naturally that was always in doubt when they sought to punish us for having the audacity to go our own way by leaving their cosy federal cartel and they didn't want it to be a success which might encourage others to follow us out. Attempting to insist that they still had the same access to our territorial fishing waters that they enjoyed before we left, and that we should not be able to set our own economic policies to stimulate growth of certain industries or regions like any other independent country are not the actions of a negotiating entity acting in good faith. Neither is their position that a FTA akin to those offered by the EU to several other countries is somehow not available to us.

And the reason that there are petitions to have the BBC defunded, is that their political agenda is run by idiot lefties like you. You might not like it "giving in" to the likes of me and GM, but we are part of the mainstream public opinion that believes that the BBC is biased towards the left politically and too PC. It is completely out of touch with society outside of the London metropolitan bubble, stuffed full of mediocre presenters who are massively overpaid, epitomised by the likes of idiots like Lineker, claiming that we owe the invention of fish and chips to refugees. As you say, if the public have to pay for the BBC, then it does need to be balanced, and it clearly is not. The BBC used to be respected around the World as a source of honest reporting, but it is now regarded as a joke. What would replace it? The same sources of news and entertainment provision that are replacing the BBC currently; social media, access to other news and entertainment sources from around the World which do not require compulsory subscription payments and which would constitute a criminal offence if not paid. They had the chance to reform themselves, but the institutional left wing bias was so deeply ingrained that they did nothing, so change will be forced upon them, including decriminalising non-payment of the license fee and tighter control of their funding.

The EU are beginning to lose their composure and getting jittery, potentially taking Barnier off the case as their negotiator, he having made no progress at all in the negotiations because of his pig-headed insistence that the EU continues plundering our fish stocks and that we remain subservient to their rules and legal system, the so-called level playing field. It seems to be the EU's idea that the negotiations will instead be between their individual nation states and our government direct, instead of between individual negotiators like Barnier and Frost. Perhaps they have some weird idea that Boris will succumb to a charm offensive, and that maybe he has a different idea of what he wants to achieve from that of his appointed negotiator. We should tell them that sorry, we are perfectly happy with the job that Frost is doing, and that he has the mandate of our government to carry on speaking on our behalf. As soon as they are prepared to accept those two red lines of ours and talk sensibly about a Canada style FTA, the sooner that we can move on. As they are fond of reminding us, the clock is ticking.

The EU are beginning to lose their composure and geting jittery, potentially taking Barnier off the case as their negotiator, he having made no progress at all in the negotiations because of his pig-headed insistence that the EU continues plundering our fish stocks and that we remain subservient to their rules and legal system, the so-called level playing field. It seems to be the EU's idea that the negotiations will instead be between their individual nation states and our government direct, instead of between individual negotiators like Barnier and Frost. Perhaps they have some weird idea that Boris will succumb to a charm offensive, and that maybe he has a different idea of what he wants to achieve from that of his appointed negotiator. We should tell them that sorry, we are perfectly happy with the job that Frost is doing, and that he has the mandate of our government to carry on speaking on our behalf. As soon as they are prepared to accept those two red lines of ours and talk sensibly about a Canada style FTA, the sooner that we can move on. As they are fond of reminding us, the clock is ticking.

Well done Boris for appointing Tony Abbott to lead the new Board of Trade, ignoring the hysterical outbursts from the leftie Guardianistas and the Labour Party stating that he wasn't suitable.